OK

but you said someone else "would" have written Being and Time. That would make Being and Time anecessary thing. All cannot be contingent if anything is necessary. Just saying.

the presence of being-in-the-world. you are being-in-the-world and to be present is to be in the world. if you were not in the world, you would not be present.

the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time.

people misunderstand Heidegger and the concept of care. it has little to do with the colloquial English understanding of the word. Instead and for Heidegger, care is the term he gives toward what is more of an explanatory spectrum for our behavior. The absence of care is just as likely to explain our behavior as the presence of care. In addition, there is no positive moral dimension to the concept. A good Nazi could care just as much about being a good Nazi as a good Christian could care about being a good Christian.

Heidegger is arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Both the History of the Concept of Time (pre-B&T) and Basic Problems of Phenomenology (post-B&T) are excellent companions to Being and Time.

There is no consensus that brains produce consciousness.

all cars is not by definition an infinite set any more than all living monarchs of the United Kingdom

Why is everyone talking about the "premises of life" as if they were listed on the back of a cereal box? I must have been out that day.

and what are the premises of life?

I see my duty as to make my tribe better. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I suspect every sheeple would say the same.

I am my highest authority, judge and guide — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Do you have some reason to believe that this renders you unusual in some significant way?

I would have to argue that what you are describing is an abuse of, rather than legitimate authority. Insofar as authority is legitimate, in my view it embraces full responsibility. — Pantagruel

There is no necessary connection between authority and acceptance of responsibility and the "legitimacy" of the authority does not create one. The world is full of people who only exercise "legitimate" authority while still denying any and all responsibility when things go bad.

Having mechanisms to force "legitimate" authority to accept responsibility is not the equivalent of "legitimate" authority "embrac[ing] full responsibility." I do not remember the last time that anyone in Washington "embraced full responsibility" for anything gone wrong. But they sure don't hesitate to push that envelope when it comes to exercising their "legitimate" authority. Even if he did it, its not a crime.

I am ultimately responsible for everything I say and do and think. So I find myself pragmatically in the same category as you I think. — Pantagruel

Insisting on being one's own highest authority is not the same as accepting responsibility for all one does. The world is full of the highest authority rejecting responsibility for the negative consequences of exercising authority. For many, the more authority they claim, the quicker they are to blame.

In reality, Descartes did not think that the cogito was a truth of experience in the usual sense of the term. It was a rational intuition that I think and that if I think it is rationally impossible for me not to exist. The negation of the cogito ergo sum would be a blatant contradiction. — David Mo

I agree. Your position is supported by Descartes characterization of the res cogitans and the res extensa as distinct and self sufficient substances. It is referred to as Cartesian dualism for a reason. Never the twain shall meet.

only an existing being can doubt. your doubt proves your existence.

Descartes presupposed I; he took existence as a starting point to prove existence. In doing so, he failed. — Kranky

You are mistaken in two fundamental ways. First, Descartes did not take "existence as a starting point." Instead, he took his "existence as a starting point." And second, he did not take his existence as a starting point "to prove existence." Instead, he took his existence as a starting point precisely because it was the only thing the existence of which he did not have to prove.

If you are still troubled by questions regarding your own existence I suggest you consult a psychologist, or psychiatrist; or perhaps your mother would be a good place to start. — A Seagull

If only Descartes would have done so.

And what is meant by 'an idea that is considered true'? Sounds tautological to me. — A Seagull

You are arguing with yourself.

1.
What I mean by an idea that is considered true is

an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true' — A Seagull

Both versions are equally tautological. My restatement is concise and adds clarity.



2.
Similarly, there is no functional difference between

A.

Propositions are labelled as 'true' when they are an accurate representation of an idea that a person believes. — A Seagull

and

B.
"Propositions are labelled as 'true' when they" [CORRESPOND to] "an idea that a person believes."

Again, my restatement is more concise and adds clarity.



3.
It matters not to me if you prefer wordiness and lack of clarity. I am just trying to help.

Either way, the theory you are pushing is of the type contemporary philosophy refers to as "correspondence." And that is simply correct whether you agree or not.

You ask 'when is now?'. The question answers itself. For now is now and not another time. — Bartricks

somewhere between before and later.

and then there is the we are all interdependent and/or in the same boat aspect of things. Don't give up; we need you.

There is no correspondence. — A Seagull

Yes there is.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull

In terms of correspondence theories of truth, your above statement would be restated as below:

Propositions are true when they CORRESPOND to an idea that is considered true.

It is not my intent to put words in your mouth. Instead, my intent is to simply clarify the "type" of theory of truth you are pushing. And the theory of truth you are pushing clearly is of the type referred to as correspondence. And that is okay. Correspondence theories of truth have been widely accepted since Descartes and continuing to the present.

That I disagree with them does not mean that they are incorrect (though they are).

Edit: by the way we’re not looking for a definition, you introduced that idea. — Brett

This question came up in Quora, and there were as many different answers as there were respondents. 'what is art' should be defined in all discussions of art, but never really is. — Pop

From the original post. I added the emphasis.

what are you doing here? — Brett

to discuss art, not to define it.

how about you?

John, who exists, went to the store, that exists, to buy some milk, that exists, for his kids, that exist." As if to clarify what things do and do not have that attribute. — Michael Lee

Why would existence have to be added to everything in order for it to be a proper predicate? we are not required to say:

"John, a man, went to the store, a building, to buy some milk, that is white, for his kids, who are not of school age."

For something to be a proper predicate of an entity does not require that it be used every time the entity is referred to.

And I agree with Kant insofar as the manner in which he was using the term "existence". But I suspect he was not using it in the manner you suggest. Instead, he meant it in terms of it not being a necessary quality of an entity. For example, if everyone agreed to a list of qualities essential for something to be considered a triangle, the existence of a triangle would not be on the list. For Kant, existence simply referred to a location of an entity and a triangle is a triangle and where it exists (if it exists) neither adds nor detracts from the triangle as a triangle.

Look at the title of the OP. That’s the subject. — Brett

not even close. This is the Philosophy Forum. No philosopher worth their salt would consider "what is art" to be the functional equivalent of "how do you define art." And it is your OP so the burden of clarity is on you.

If you want a discussion, take it to the forum. If you want a definition, take it to Google.

Perhaps the point to realise is that your model of the world differs from everybody else's and that their is no perfect or 'real' model with which to compare it. — A Seagull

I already know that.

But adding the word "model" does not overcome the problem unless everyone knows that "model" is a synonym for "my" (as opposed to yours) and if "model" is a synonym for "my" then we can just use the world "my".

So not only is "model" not going to clarify any confusion regarding differences among or between worlds, it is actually likely to create such confusion in that it connotes replica, copy, facsimile, etc. as if my [model] world were some how less than real. And you may rest assured there are no worlds that are more "real" than mine.

I actually said that several posts ago.

But at no time was a rejecting any definition of art.

Instead, I was rejecting to the notion that we need to define art before we can discuss it.

I have had many a meaningful discussion about art with many people and with many of them having a far deeper understanding of art than I.

But not a single discussion ever began or ended with an any agreement or disagreement regarding a definition of art.

Either way, this is a discussion and not an interview.

What is art?

art is a reflection of the world in which the artist finds herself/himself to be.

I will start with that.

Why are you here? — Brett

to discuss art.

what about you?

One does not need to declare that a model of the world is 'real', all one needs to do is to realise that the model is all one knows about the world. — A Seagull

That is just a word game.

I am my world. And within my world is the realization that my world is all I know about the world.

Nothing is to be gained by saying:

I am my model world. And within my model world is my realization that my model world is all I know about the model world.

The best model of the world is the world.

If it helps, you may add the word "model" to the word "world" every time I use the word "world." It would probably be more efficient if you just did it in your head.

And you are welcome.

:-)

I mean it would take a sheer act of will to exclude the word “truth” from the mental lexicon — NOS4A2

I think it is constitutive of who we are. We could not survive without an understanding of truth. Nor could most (if any) other mammals.

But for us (and perhaps other species) it goes beyond that. I see truth/untruth almost as an atmosphere in which we live our lives. So much of our engagement in the world revolves around revealing/concealing truth. And for some, just as much is to be gained by concealing as revealing. We are in the truth business.

(To save time)
If you have purchased art, then you have done this, " I will decide what art is". — Punshhh

You may rest assured that whatever it is I may have done is consistent with my assertion that I will determine for myself what I consider to be art, and that includes anything hanging on my living room wall (though my living room wall contains mostly interesting pieces of driftwood I find when I go to the beach).

If you happen to find anything else on my wall that others may consider to be art, it is only there because we happen to agree. I certainly didn't seek anyone else's opinion, let alone rely upon it.

That’s why I do not believe there is something called “truth” because to do so would be untrue. — NOS4A2

Everybody is different.

I am incapable of rejecting the possibility that there are deeper understandings to be had than the ones I have.

I have always been that way. It is a blessing and a curse.

1.7k

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.
— Arne

Which is what? — Brett
↪Arne

You never answered this. — Brett

Mine and mine alone. Again, I have no obligation to share the criteria I find useful in determining what I consider to be art.

And what is it that you want in the way of definition anyways?

And I can tell you my thoughts on what art is without providing any sort of definition that would provide a template as to whether any particular purported work of art is art.

I do not really care as to how others define art and I am a bit puzzled as to why they would care as to how I define it. Because mostly I don't.

Art is a reflection of the world of the artist. How could it be anything else?

You just don’t like talking about it. — Brett

I love talking about it.

Is there anyone talking with you about it more than I?

Truth is not a thing because it doesn’t have a boundary — NOS4A2

So you have no criterion other than your own preference for determining thingness/non-thingness.

I respect that and I am going to adopt that.

And truth is bounded by non-truth.

doesn’t have any objectivity or reality outside of the mind. — NOS4A2

What does that even mean? You could not possibly come to understand anything meaningful about the world in which you find yourself in the absence of truth. If you drive to work, you can only do so because you know the truth regarding how cars work (I presume you would consider cars to be outside your mind, whatever that means), where to get gas (I presume you consider the gas station to be outside your mind, whatever that means), and the route to work (also outside your mind?). You could not make your way around in the world in the absence of truth. So even if you really do buy into this internal/external inside/outside subject/object nonsense, you could have no meaningful understanding of anything "outside your mind" in the absence of truth.

What you indicate is a total lack of interest in art. Fine, but why bother posting here? — Brett

I love art.

What rules? — NOS4A2

What is the basis upon which you make your claim to the non-thingness of truth, processes, and jogs.

What is the basis upon which you determine thingness/non-thingness.

So far, all you have offered is some ill-defined fear of the potential for grammatical errors and that strikes as insufficient.